Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecutor violated the court's Sandoval ruling by questioning the defendant regarding the facts and circumstances of the defendant's prior plea of guilty to a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, a prior dismissed indictment, and the defendant's violation of an order of protection. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's Sandoval ruling permitted inquiry into the defendant's violation of an order of protection. Thus, inquiry regarding that violation was not error. The defendant's remaining contentions with respect to the alleged violation of the Sandoval ruling are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), and in any event, are without merit, because the defense counsel opened the door to the inquiry (see, People v Crandall, 67 N.Y.2d 111, 119; People v Julien, 182 A.D.2d 642).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.